T800,

Sorry, my last response was inadequate due to word restrictions. I’ll try again.

<<… honestly, you take the cake mate.>>

Yes, I certainly would if your analogy were in any way accurate. As it turns out, you’re the only one with cake here. Or fighting Leo over it, at least.

<<So lets call Cricket Soccer in case some Soccer players want to play Cricket one day?>>

No, because if a cricket player wants to play soccer, they can do so without confusing labels. Furthermore, this implies that same-sex marriage is not a valid concept (since cricket can never be soccer), an assertion that you mob are yet to justify.

<<Huh? You call that logic?>>

No, I don't. But your false analogy has added yet another fallacy to your growing list.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy

<<You call that a reason for redefining something that has been accepted for millennia?>>

No.

<<Really?>>

Really, no.

<<Let them call it something else.>>

Thankfully others have spared me the effort of having to discredit this flawed ‘find another word’ demand. It’s only ever made because unions between gay couples are seen to be unworthy and lacking legitimacy.

--

o sung wu,

Unfortunately that article is not a free one, so the link only provides the abstract and reference list.

<<… endless passages of words, and more words with endless views and opinions.>>

Yeah, they were references, not opinions. Mere opinions don’t make it into peer-reviewed work. You made this mistake once before. Remember?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6653#201527

<<But I thought I'd at least persevere a little longer …>>

Reading a reference list would have taken some perseverance, yes.

<<How in hell do you manage to read … such utterly boring 'dust dry' material.>>

You don't, unless you're interested in the sources.

<<I've never read so much gobbledygook …>>

Yes, a reference list certainly would look like gobbledygook if one didn't know what it was.

<<This stuff is just another example of the trendy 'Left' … calculated to destroy the fabric of the entire community.>>

Apparently not.

You conservatives would sooner assume a sinister conspiracy than ever change your minds. Sad.

Good evening to you too TONI LAVIS...

Thank you for your query, I might also suggest,you should perhaps direct the same query to other fellow confederates and collaborators hereon? However you're quite correct when you draw my attention to the fact that I've failed to properly consign my remarks to the topic. For that you have my profound apologies. That it's a well know fact, that it generally takes two hands to clap?

Perhaps then in order to establish some balance, you should once more don your moderator's cap, and remind my esteemed antagonist and fellow subscriber A.J.PHILIPS, that he too is obliged to faithfully adhere to the topic under discussion.

And to address your question, made yesterday evening, c.1920h - whereas you asked whether you suffered from a perversion if you received fellatio ? What do you think Toni? Why precisely did you ask? A somewhat odd question from a normal person on such a public Forum notwithstanding our anonymity prevailing.

It would seem you're relatively uncomfortable with ordinary sexual interaction ? What exactly is troubling you ? Your obvious inexperience with partners of either gender; your confusion with the usual steps of a normal sexual union, again with either gender; or something as simple as your confusion and perplexity with trying to decide your preferred gender as an ideal sexual partner; a very common instance of bemusement over your own gender proclivities.

What ever it is Toni, there's always help available in matters of sexual confusion or male dysfunction. In any event I hope our brief chat is some benefit to you, and goes in someway in assuaging you of any further anxiety.

A.J.PHILIPS...

Without your (poorly educated) police, anarchy would prevail, our neighborhoods and public places, would become impassable. Violence and crime would interrupt the process of good governance. Neither males or females could venture upon the streets without a substantial guard to accompany them. There'd be no schools, colleges or tertiary centres operating. Limited access to retail establishments. The hospitals would overflow, very limited public transport; most airlines would suspend services; and so on it would go!

Without your criminologists; your psychologists; and other ineffectual and unavailing academics...nothing would happen, nobody would know, nor care!

A question for you A.J.PHILIPS, what precisely is your job, how do you earn your salary as a criminologists ?

AJP says:” asking one to justify one's claim is never "stupid".
You have just supplied us with an instance where it is stupid..
I have supplied the appropriate definition and have correctly applied it to prove my assertion.
You say:”Your argument is still just that homosexuality is perversion because it just is.” Are you lying or mistaken AJP. You could not have missed that I supplied a definition of “perversion” and showed how it applied to the male homosexual act. Female homosexual acts are different but still fit the definition.

o sung wu,

Why would police need to be poorly educated to prevent any of that?

<<Without your (poorly educated) police, anarchy would prevail ...>>

This sounds to me like an assumption based on inaccurate stereotypes. My “chuckling” cousin is 6’2” and twice the width of me. And without being fat, I’m not exactly a short or weedy person myself. Bigger than most.

<<Without your criminologists; your psychologists; and other ineffectual and unavailing academics...nothing would happen, nobody would know, nor care!>>

I know. Although why you would refer to them as “ineffectual” and “unavailing” while acknowledging that they raise such awareness is beyond me. So far you have demonstrated that you haven’t the slightest clue what any academic does, so how you could make either of the contradictory claims in this statement is beyond me.

<<A question for you A.J.PHILIPS, what precisely is your job, how do you earn your salary as a criminologists ?>>

I started typing my resonse but on second thoughts, I’m not sure it would be wise of me to tell you. I know, going by experience with another similar personal question from you (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6635#200328), that it would be used as the basis of another round of baseless personal attacks, or as a means of ad hominem suggestions questioning my ability to understand the topic we’re discussing.

No, let’s just say that I’m not a criminologist by profession and leave it at that. We’ll let my arguments stand or fall on their own merit. At least for now.

As for your response to Toni Lavis regarding our off topic discussion. I’d just like to say (in defence of Toni Lavis and myself) that I think people should be allowed to defend themselves against baseless and unwarranted attacks (as I am currently doing) without fear of censure from others for being off topic.

--

Leo Lane,

That’s a bit more subjective than self-evident. Don’t you think?

<<You could not have missed that I supplied a definition of “perversion” ...>>

Perversion:
”Sexual behaviour that is considered abnormal and unacceptable”
(http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/perversion)

So who decides what is “abnormal” or “unacceptable”?

//remind my esteemed antagonist and fellow subscriber A.J.PHILIPS, that he too is obliged to faithfully adhere to the topic under discussion.//

No need. In his previous six posts, he's been consistently on-topic except when defending himself against your sad attempts at trolling.

None of your last six posts have touched on the topic; five have been trolling AJ and I'm thrilled to see that your having a go at me now. Kinda sad that you've got nothing better to do than hang around here all day trying to get AJ to pay attention to you.

//Female homosexual acts are different but still fit the definition.//

How is cunnilingus any more perverted for lesbians than it is for heterosexuals? It's still the same sexual act.